Tuesday, January 31, 2012

John Jay Myers on the Iranian threat to Israel

From the Facebook page of my buddy John Jay Myers:

CNN just stated that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, so the war drums continue. Iran, however, has never said that. Iran's nuclear capability is the "Weapons of Mass destruction" lie continued needed for us to continue war, and give oil rights to our masters.

Iran would never drop a nuclear weapon on Israel....

Reason 1: Because we would flatten them like a pancake.

Reason 2: Because they claim to want Israel (the land), so why would they nuke it?

Reason 3: Because millions of Palestinians live in Israel, so I am pretty sure nuking them would come across as an act of bad faith.

Reason 4: Nuclear bombs are no small affair, Nuking Israel would also be nuking Syria, Turkey, Egypt etc. I believe that would cause them all to have to ask... whose side are these guys on?

Reason 5: See Reason 1, the only reason that matters.

Now, why would they want one (a nuke)? Because we seem to have this habit of taking over countries who don't (have nukes) and respecting the rights of those that do.

John Jay Myers. Always short, sweet, and straight to the point. Plus, he makes good gumbo.

4 comments:

Maybe, but too many variables to make that a definitive statement. I can't see obama ordering nuclear or any other significant military retaliation against Iran. Additional sanctions are more his speed.

Also unknown are reactions of other world powers - especially China and Russia, who have closer ties to Iran than we do. They might extend some sort of protection.

Reason 2: Because they claim to want Israel (the land), so why would they nuke it?

Tactical nukes (20 KT or less) could be used against Jerusalem and other cities, leaving much of the countryside untouched. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Reason 3: Because millions of Palestinians live in Israel, so I am pretty sure nuking them would come across as an act of bad faith.

Really? Tell that to the Muslim victims of Muslim suicide bombers. Collateral damage has no meaning to those 'people.' Killing a few Palestinians would be seen as a small price to pay for eliminating Israel.

Reason 4: Nuclear bombs are no small affair, Nuking Israel would also be nuking Syria, Turkey, Egypt etc. I believe that would cause them all to have to ask... whose side are these guys on?

See the replies to #s 2 and 3 above.

Reason 5: See Reason 1, the only reason that matters.

As previously stated, IMO our "flatten them like a pancake" response is doubtful.

Now, why would they want one (a nuke)? Because we seem to have this habit of taking over countries who don't (have nukes) and respecting the rights of those that do.

Last time I looked we hadn't taken over Italy, Germany, Mexico, the Philippines, Canada, Brazil, Australia... We have, however, disrespected the rights of North Korea and Iran via sanctions.

Bottom line - Mr. Myers is assuming that Iran will behave rationally. I disagree.

The last time the Persians/Iranians engaged in the invasion of neighboring territory was the Byzantine–Sassanid War of AD 602–628. Iran is a Shiite nation surrounded by Sunni enemies except Iraq which is no longer under Sunni control (thanks to the US). They are unlikely to attack Israel due to the overwhelming response it would generate. They would be then sufficiently weakened as to be overwhelmed by their Sunni neighbors.

It is more than likely that our rulers, due to global economic conditions, wish to gin up war fever to distract us from the conditions resulting from their failed economic/financial policies.

If the Iranians get a bomb, they can attack Israelis relentlessly with conventional terrorist means and have a nuke to use on our troops if we ever staged a reprisal attack. It is insurance against invasion.

If Iran did use a nuke we would NOT retaliate with nukes. We're going to flatten an Iranian what? Places with lots of Iranian people? Wrong.

If Iran had a nuke, they could sneak it into our country and attack one of our cities. Then we would do....what? I don't believe we could prove it was them.

It's crazy. If we didn't think they could use one, then why don't we just sell them some small devices. If they are scared of us, it will make them feel better. Problem solved, libertarian style, right?

Bush had it right. Iran is part of an axis of evil and its rulers, not its people, need to be destroyed.

Five years ago they said it would take Iran five years to get a nuke. Four years ago they said it was four years. 3, 2, 1, bang!

Live and let live is only a workable strategy if your neighbors share the belief.

The number and size of world conflicts have grown smaller and smaller. The reason is because we have kept a strong military and have been actively opposing the world's assholes. If the parties want perpetual war, then there was no sense in cutting our military for eight consecutive years in the 90s. There would be no sense in cutting our military now. The actions of our government don't match the worldview of an ever growing military complex.

War has never distracted us from failed policies. If anything, they add to the perception of fiscal distress. The nation nearly went broke in WWII, unable to sell any more bonds.

"If the Iranians get a bomb, they can attack Israelis relentlessly with conventional terrorist means and have a nuke to use on our troops if we ever staged a reprisal attack. It is insurance against invasion."

Iran could get a bomb any time it liked, Pakistan has them, Russia has many that are "missing in action" so if it was their goal to launch one against Israel they could have done it. So why not?

The only true part of this statement is the last line "that it is insurance against invasion" what country wouldn't want insurance against invasion? Libya had insurance against invasion and then gave up their nuclear capability a few years ago, how did that work out for them?

In your second paragraph you say that if they use a nuke we wouldn't respond with nukes. I don't believe that is true. People in a country are, unfortunately, responsible for their government.

In your second to last paragraph you state that you believe the world is more stable because we have gone around stopping the worlds assholes, when just a quick glance at our interventions would prove quite the opposite, during Mubarak's time in Egypt we gave him 80 billion dollars, we funded Saddam Hussein, we funded the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was led by.....wait for it... Osama Bin Laden. We destroyed democracy in Iran and Syria in the 50's it appears we unspread democracy in favor of oilocracy, this tends to piss people off. It also causes our establishment propaganda teams to go into overdrive to make you believe that these people are out to kill you and completely unstable.

But your right, those Iranians are fanatic psychos. They're not angry at us because we forcibly replaced their democratically elected leader Mosadegh, gave weapons to Iraq in a war against them, or invaded two of their neighbors. That's not what's bugging them. It's because they're Muslim fanatics. That's why we need to deal with them decisively.............uh huh.